[GryphonGuy]

ice-cream making machine is the end process but in this case, DAC is the end process. if you want then mouth/ears will be the end process, respectively.

Until now, you still didn't got the HMS?

I don't think you understood my analogy or the reason I made it up.

Mscaler is a combined hardware (very specialised hardware at that) and software solution that upscales the resolution of digital music in realtime (as and when it happens). The resulting up-rezzed data is usually fed into a DAC within milliseconds or less after it is created.

PGGB is a combined hardware and software solution (just like Mscaler but the hardware is an ordinary general-purpose computer) that upscales the resolution of digital music offline. The resulting up-rezzed data is usually stored as in a file and will be processed through a DAC later.

So effectively Mscaler and PGGB appear to be competitors because they do similar things and achieve similar outcomes but each creator will say they are very different. Competition is great.

So from my point of view I needed a "story" to let you know a similar scenario that I hoped would make it easier to see what I was saying.

Both Mscaler and PGGB are doing similar things. If you really do want to process PGGB files through the Mscaler, then you should also want to record the Mscaler's output and pump it through PGGB as well. If one seems an odd approach to you, then they both should be seen as odd approaches is what I was trying to say.


Just for the record, despite multiple auditions of Mscaler, I always found the bass notes to be "off". very recessed and seemingly divorced from the rest of the music. When I tested PGGB, the very same effect was at play. So after much investigation and testing and to cut a long story short, replacing my headphone cable with a Lazuli Nirvana corrected the bass note problems and has brought my up-rezzed listening to new levels of realism through my DAVE.

I hope this clarifies my simple analogy in a previous post.

Regards
GG

 

[kennyb123]

So effectively Mscaler and PGGB appear to be competitors because they do similar things and achieve similar outcomes but each creator will say they are very different. Competition is great.

There’s one more competitor, so to speak. What both PGGB and M-Scaler do is scale up to 16FS. Chord DACs also have a WTA filter that also scales up to 16FS, but with not as many taps. You can see this in the diagram of the Chord DAVE that’s pictured. What I think happens if a Chord DAC is fed 16FS is that some of these stages are bypassed so that the 16FS is fed to the pulse array DAC without further processing. This ensures that an M-Scaler has the final word on the processing.

I would think the M-Scaler would behave the same way as it’s essentially the FPGA section of that box, but with a more powerful FPGA that can scale to a million taps.
Much of this is way above my pay grade so I am sure I don’t have this right.

 

[Rob Watts]

Question for @Rob Watts please. If playing an upsampled file (705,768) to an mscaler/TT2, is the mscaler bypassed or is the file still processed? Is it better to select bypass mode on the mscaler or let the electronics figure it out. I’ve been in the HQPlayer world for awhile but have returned to the mscaler and have quite a few PGGB upsampled files I would like to play through it.

705/768 files are treated as the same as pass through mode - that is, scaled in volume (so all inputs stay at the same volume level) and then aggressively noise shaped to 24b for the BNC OPs. This means that 32b inputs are properly and transparently converted too.

 

[dac64]

I don't think you understood my analogy or the reason I made it up.

Mscaler is a combined hardware (very specialised hardware at that) and software solution that upscales the resolution of digital music in realtime (as and when it happens). The resulting up-rezzed data is usually fed into a DAC within milliseconds or less after it is created.

PGGB is a combined hardware and software solution (just like Mscaler but the hardware is an ordinary general-purpose computer) that upscales the resolution of digital music offline. The resulting up-rezzed data is usually stored as in a file and will be processed through a DAC later.

So effectively Mscaler and PGGB appear to be competitors because they do similar things and achieve similar outcomes but each creator will say they are very different. Competition is great.

So from my point of view I needed a "story" to let you know a similar scenario that I hoped would make it easier to see what I was saying.

Both Mscaler and PGGB are doing similar things. If you really do want to process PGGB files through the Mscaler, then you should also want to record the Mscaler's output and pump it through PGGB as well. If one seems an odd approach to you, then they both should be seen as odd approaches is what I was trying to say.


Just for the record, despite multiple auditions of Mscaler, I always found the bass notes to be "off". very recessed and seemingly divorced from the rest of the music. When I tested PGGB, the very same effect was at play. So after much investigation and testing and to cut a long story short, replacing my headphone cable with a Lazuli Nirvana corrected the bass note problems and has brought my up-rezzed listening to new levels of realism through my DAVE.

I hope this clarifies my simple analogy in a previous post.

Regards
GG

Let us skip the gossip part, after all, just merely gossiping!

Maybe my Dac is a Qutest or I'm listening to 2ch. In my system, the best part of the HMS is the bass performance, no coherence issues from top to bottom.

However, and however, if one wanted to bring out the best of HMS, good BNCs and gadgets are necessary.

Just like obtaining an expensive pair of speakers. Yes, it will perform as expected in a proper system. However, to bring out the best of the speakers, one needs to integrate the speakers into the room.

P/S: Here is a wonderful link if one like bass : https://anadyomene-records.com/download.htm

 

[Glossator]

I don't think you understood my analogy or the reason I made it up.

Mscaler is a combined hardware (very specialised hardware at that) and software solution that upscales the resolution of digital music in realtime (as and when it happens). The resulting up-rezzed data is usually fed into a DAC within milliseconds or less after it is created.

PGGB is a combined hardware and software solution (just like Mscaler but the hardware is an ordinary general-purpose computer) that upscales the resolution of digital music offline. The resulting up-rezzed data is usually stored as in a file and will be processed through a DAC later.

So effectively Mscaler and PGGB appear to be competitors because they do similar things and achieve similar outcomes but each creator will say they are very different. Competition is great.

So from my point of view I needed a "story" to let you know a similar scenario that I hoped would make it easier to see what I was saying.

Both Mscaler and PGGB are doing similar things. If you really do want to process PGGB files through the Mscaler, then you should also want to record the Mscaler's output and pump it through PGGB as well. If one seems an odd approach to you, then they both should be seen as odd approaches is what I was trying to say.


Just for the record, despite multiple auditions of Mscaler, I always found the bass notes to be "off". very recessed and seemingly divorced from the rest of the music. When I tested PGGB, the very same effect was at play. So after much investigation and testing and to cut a long story short, replacing my headphone cable with a Lazuli Nirvana corrected the bass note problems and has brought my up-rezzed listening to new levels of realism through my DAVE.

I hope this clarifies my simple analogy in a previous post.

Regards
GG

Just to second your final comment - the Nirvana straight out of DAVE, to a suitably transparent headphone, is fantastic ... and not just at the bass end.

 

[Edric Li]

Probably not - and of course mains sensitivity depends upon your gear and how you power your system up. The problem with mains conditioners is that nobody understands how crucial RF noise is, and do not properly filter from 100kHz to 10GHz. It's horribly complicated to do that on a mains filter. Most mains conditioners are only worried about 50Hz or 60Hz power delivery, and that's useless - the approach is likely to create more RF noise, making it sound brighter and worse...

But by all means try them out - strictly before you purchase or on a sale or return basis - and if it sounds brighter, or no difference, then return it. Mains treatment, if it represents an improvement, will always sound warmer, smoother or darker.

The issue of RF noise, and noise floor modulation and how sensitive we are to this problem came to the fore a couple of days ago. I am working on several new projects, and one of them I was doing listening tests on a new HF filter - like the one in Hugo 2 (the white to green filter). Now this filter with 44.1 is technically minute, as HF noise is extremely small when using CD. But I could hear a difference, albeit small. So I ran a single blind test with my son, and asked him to state which one sounded warmer, or if they sounded the same. He could spot the HF filter, identifying it as warmer sounding - although he confirmed it was a small change.

The reason I was doing this listening test was the Hugo 2 HF filter gently rolls off at 20kHz - it's about -1dB down. One reviewer commented that this was the reason for it sounding warmer, and I thought that was unlikely - although it's possible. The new filter actually has 20kHz compensation built in, and nett boosts 20k by +0.4dB (to compensate for other filters). But even with this boost, it still sounds warmer, proving that noise floor modulation is the cause of the HF filters change in sound quality.

Moving onto your point about a review stating that Dave perfectly recreates the analogue signal, then "perfectly" certainly didn't come from me or Chord. I am very careful to, when possible, define how good a given process is; that's why I have said that Dave is about 13 bit accurate worst case compared to the ideal sinc function, and the M scaler is better than 16 bits. I always find it very amusing looking at some competitors DACs with perfect this and perfect that nonsense. Nothing is ever perfect. And from a business POV, once you have created the "perfect" DAC, how can you promote the "more perfect" DAC in a couple of years time when the replacement comes along?

I know it sounds impossible but I could swear I hear the difference going from white filter to green filter on mp3 files, even on generic pop music, with my $25 earphones. I find the green filter helps suppress the "digital glare." The s's and t's, the hi-hats and the guitar scratches become snappier, and the "glare" doesn't linger in my head as long.

 

[Rob Watts]

The crazy thing about listening tests is that errors that are effectively zero are still audible - even today, after 40 years of designing gear, I am constantly being surprised at how sensitive the ear/brain actually is. And of course I can hear the sceptic saying it's all placebo; and sure placebo is a powerful thing, but I spend a lot of time minimizing placebo and other biases from my listening tests - and when I get extraordinary results I run blind tests with my son - and the extraordinary results still stands.

On one hand I am delighted that I am so sensitive to minute changes - as otherwise progress could not be made. But life would be so much easier if I could detect no difference from live unamplified sound to reproduced sound. But then how could one enjoy music without sensitivity?

 

[hifuguy]

The crazy thing about listening tests is that errors that are effectively zero are still audible - even today, after 40 years of designing gear, I am constantly being surprised at how sensitive the ear/brain actually is. And of course I can hear the sceptic saying it's all placebo; and sure placebo is a powerful thing, but I spend a lot of time minimizing placebo and other biases from my listening tests - and when I get extraordinary results I run blind tests with my son - and the extraordinary results still stands.

On one hand I am delighted that I am so sensitive to minute changes - as otherwise progress could not be made. But life would be so much easier if I could detect no difference from live unamplified sound to reproduced sound. But then how could one enjoy music without sensitivity?

Well Rob.... without contrast, there is no picture!

 

[antastik]

@Rob Watts I have a question regarding the best way to supply the output of your DACs to a preamp/integrated amp. Most of your DACs allow to choose between output tension of 1V, 2V or 3V. Now, you already explained in other threads, that the output of the DAC is invariant to this setting and that the perceived difference in sound depends on the preamp/amp behaviour. Is it better to have 3V and volume pot positioned at 9:00 o' clock or 1V and volume pot positioned at 12:00? I do hear a difference, but I am not sure which one is the "right" sound. Thanks for your coaching

 

[Rob Watts]

It depends entirely upon the preamp/amp. The warmer/richer/smoother sound should be the one to go for.

 

[thePhones]

Will Davina recordings be free of such mains artifacts. I am asking for a friend…

 

[Rob Watts]

The ADC will be free from mains hum, but I can't answer for the microphones!

 

[thePhones]

The ADC will be free from mains hum, but I can't answer for the microphones!

oh oh
Investigators will be like: yeah we got him… but more importantly we have never heard such a clean recording of mains hum

 

[Kentajalli]

The ADC will be free from mains hum, but I can't answer for the microphones . . .

. . . guitar amps, old keyboards . . .
Just listen to the music!
most of 70's Rock has hiss, hum, bump and occasional coughs and farts - never bothered me.
Most classical music . . I wouldn't even start on them.

 

[opienor]

. . . guitar amps, old keyboards . . .
Just listen to the music!
most of 70's Rock has hiss, hum, bump and occasional coughs and farts - never bothered me.
Most classical music . . I wouldn't even start on them.

My old Marshall in the 90´s, when I kicked on overdrive and the Crybaby, took in a couple of local FM stations. Those were the days